Search - considered

I have considered all the cases referred to by both parties but the one that gives me most difficulty is Shapiro v. ... Thereafter, he made payments to her pursuant to what he considered was his concurrence with the terms requested in the letter and did so based on a monthly amount equal to two- thirds of his net earnings. ... He was still paying what he considered to be maintenance to his wife and children but at a reduced amount in the specific sum of $1,500 each month. ...

Thus, where the nature of a taxpayer's venture contains elements which suggest that it could be considered a hobby or other personal pursuit, but the venture is undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner, the venture will be considered a source of income for the purposes of the Act.   53    We emphasize that this "pursuit of profit" source test will only require analysis in situations where there is some personal or hobby element to the activity in question. ... We would also emphasize that although the reasonable expectation of profit is a factor to be considered at this stage, it is not the only factor, nor is it conclusive.  ... It therefore follows that section 143.2 of the Act applies in the present appeal. [43]     Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act, subsection 143.2(6) calculates the expenditure amount in respect of a tax shelter investment, which is essentially the amount of a taxpayer's expenditure before applying the rules, reduced by deducting the total of: (i) limited recourse amounts that can reasonably be considered to be related to the expenditure; (ii) at-risk adjustment in respect of the expenditure; and (iii) limited recourse amount and at-risk adjustment of each taxpayer who deals at arm's length with the taxpayer and holds an interest in the taxpayer, that can reasonably be considered related to the expenditure. [44]     The Appellant’s expenditure with respect to the tax shelter investment was the $20,000 royalty amount, which was reported on the Summary Tax Shelter Information Form [Form 5003E]. [45]     I n the Tolhoek v. ...

Counsel for the respondent advised the Court that the fair market value of the appellants' shares in the Numbered Company as at June 25, 1986 was no less than $1 million and is no longer considered by the respondent to be $2.6 million as assumed on assessment. ... He was unable to say how this would be done or whether the appellants had ever considered doing it, and he gave no evidence respecting its overall tax consequences. ... Jung had addressed the matter, had noted the historical sales and earnings of the company, had considered the effects of the 1984 fire and had felt at the time the value amount of $500,000 would be reasonable. ...

For the purposes of this section and sections 111 and 127, a taxpayer who is a member of a partnership at a particular time is a limited partner of that partnership at that time if his partnership interest is not an exempt interest at that time (within the meaning assigned by subsection (2.5)) and if, at that time or within three years after that time, (a)        by operation of any law which governs the partnership arrangement, the liability of the taxpayer in his capacity as a member of the partnership, is limited; (b)        the taxpayer or a person with whom the taxpayer does not deal at arm's length is entitled to receive an amount or obtain a benefit that would be described in paragraph (2.2)(d) if it were read without reference to subparagraphs (ii) and (vi) thereof; (c)         one of the reasons for the existence of the taxpayer who owns the interest (i)          may reasonably be considered to be to limit the liability of any other person with respect to that interest, and (ii)         may not reasonably be considered to be to permit any person who has an interest in the taxpayer to carry on his business (other than an investment business) in the most effective manner; or             (d)         there is an agreement or other arrangement for the disposition of an interest in the partnership and one of the main reasons for the agreement or arrangement may reasonably be considered to be to attempt to avoid the application of this subsection to the taxpayer. [My emphasis.] [21]     It is useful to refer once again to the words of Chief Justice Garon in McKeown, which are still relevant: 406      Here, in view of the facts of this case, it seems to me that only the application of paragraph 96(2.4)(b) need be considered. ... Where, in a particular taxation year of a taxpayer who is a member of a partnership, an amount would, if the partnership were a person and its fiscal period were its taxation year, be determined in respect of the partnership, for its taxation year ending in that particular taxation year, under paragraph (a), (b) or (e.1) of the definition "investment tax credit" in subsection (9), if (a)      Paragraph (a) of that definition were read without reference to subparagraph (iii) thereof, and (b)      in the case of a taxpayer who is a specified member of the partnership in the taxation year of the partnership, (i) paragraph (a) of that definition were read without reference to subparagraph (ii) thereof... the portion of that amount that may reasonably be considered to be the taxpayer's share thereof shall be added in computing the investment tax credit of the taxpayer at the end of that particular taxation year. ...

Ollu’s salary was paid by Dixie and he was considered to be an employee of Dixie. ... The payments made by the taxpayer could not be considered as a separate operation isolated from the initial venture and had none of the characteristics of a regular loan. ... There is not a scintilla of evidence that Dixie considered the business of Noonday U.K., or its assets or liabilities, as its own. ...

Taylor and his children, which was considered to be excessive, and other minor sums to obtain a net standardized profit, which was, in the witness's opinion, required by the valuation techniques. ... The data he considered related to operations for the years 1977 to 1981. ... Taylor and his children for 1977, of $11,332 for 1978, $10,397 for 1979, $20,920 for 1980 and $165,971 for 1981, which he considered to be excessive, and a number of other minor corrections to obtain a realistic return. ...

However, it was referenced by several judges in considering the scope of the words “arranging for” in the case law considered below ... Bowie J. considered the scope of paragraph (l) in Royal Bank of Canada v. ... She appears to have considered the two activities together.   [39]         In the case at bar, the causal event for the service is the customer’s choice to use the machine. ...

[Emphasis added.] [20]          Subsection 256(5.1) of the Act defines the phrase "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever" as follows:   Control in fact   For the purposes of this Act, where the expression "controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever," is used, a corporation shall be considered to be so controlled by another corporation, person or group of persons (in this subsection referred to as the "controller") at any time where, at that time, the controller has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation, except that, where the corporation and the controller are dealing with each other at arm's length and the influence is derived from a franchise, licence, lease, distribution, supply or management agreement or other similar agreement or arrangement, the main purpose of which is to govern the relationship between the corporation and the controller regarding the manner in which a business carried on by the corporation is to be conducted, the corporation shall not be considered to be controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever, by the controller by reason only of that agreement or arrangement.                                                                                         ... Not only is it not an irrevocable proxy, it is also a type of document that, according to Iacobucci J., is "not generally to be considered". ... Côté's intervention, at the very least, would still be needed in order for those documents to be considered a unanimous shareholder agreement within the meaning of the CBCA. [5] Only the three members of the Fuchs family signed these documents. ...

Wafer said, she had, on occasion, rented a chair and, in such a circumstance, considered herself carrying on her own business. ... She said from the first day that she started working at Michel she considered herself an employee. She was part of the staff and considered herself part of Michel's business. ...

For Gestion Hamel and Gestion Dufresne to be considered not to be dealing with each other at arm’s length, they must be related. [3] These two corporations may be related if each of them is controlled by a person who is related to the person who controls the other corporation. ... For example, in paragraph 55(5)(e) of the Act, Parliament did not merely provide that two sisters are deemed not to be related to each other; it also considered it necessary to add that they are deemed to be dealing with each other at arm’s length. ... Dufresne would be considered brothers-in-law and would thus be deemed to be brothers. ...